Professors tell students since course evaluations are anonymous, students should say what they want.

But a recent example of a student writing offensive statements about a professor showed that is not always the case.

As course evaluations fill time before finals, thousands of University students are asked to evaluate instructor’s performance and teaching methods with the promise of anonymity.

It’s a promise the University stands behind.

“I believe firmly that the right to say what you want to say without fear of retribution is an essential part of that process and we need to protect it,” University President Michael Adams said in an interview in The Red & Black newsroom. “I would still protect a person’s right to say something.”

Unless …

“There is free speech, but you can’t yell fire in a crowded theater,” he said. “If I thought a student was making threats of endangerment to either himself, herself or someone else, you might want to take that into consideration. That’s basically the conflict of two rights – the right to privacy and right to protection.”

Evaluations are valued tools in the University’s teaching process, but the practice is entangled. The University can’t guarantee anonymity and then trace students who make threats, but then it can’t trace threats without compromising students’ anonymity.

The debate unfurled in October, after the University used a handwriting expert to chase a student who made disparaging remarks on a pair of course evaluations. Brian Beck was found in violation of University policy by student judiciary after writing threatening and explicit comments.

Jere Morehead, vice president for instruction, said the situation was unusual.

“I wouldn’t anticipate that would arise very often,” Morehead said. “If a student engages in a level of wrong-doing, it takes the evaluations to a different level.”

The incident brings to light a reality: Comments written in student evaluations are not assured anonymity.

Adams promotes anonymity ‘to the fullest extent possible’

“I think anonymity is the right way to do course evaluations,” Adams said. “Evaluations should be done in a way to protect a person’s anonymity to the fullest extent possible. I lean strongly toward anonymity in 99.94 percent of the cases.”

But since the Virginia Tech shooting, universities are more attuned to warning signs of violent behavior. Adams said the University has some right to protect students, and monitoring threats or negative material on course evaluations may be used as preventative measures.

Most administrators in various colleges on campus said that situation has not happened, but if it did, they would notify campus police. Many said course evaluations were not the correct outlet for threats, personal critiques or other comments not dealing with teaching methods.

At the Warnell School of Forestry, use of vulgar language is deleted, according to Ron Hendrick, associate dean of academic programs.

At the College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, inappropriate comments not pertaining to teaching are not given to professors, said Joe Broder, associate dean of academics. Comments are edited from the final version handed to professors.

“If something else is wrong, that should go through a separate process,” Broder said.

He said while anonymity is important in getting information, it will not ensure complete disclosure: “If you say it’s not anonymous, it can lose all effectiveness.”

In the Terry College of Business, disdainful comments are followed up, said Mel Crask, the college’s associate dean of academic programs. But he added he hasn’t seen a situation in which there are concerns over comments.

But if there were a concern in some colleges, identifying the student is difficult because evaluations are done electronically. Kathleen deMarrais, associate dean for academic programs in the College of Education, said it wouldn’t be likely to have an overall policy, but the school would refer to University policy on threats. Because College of Education evaluations are done electronically or by Scantron, they cannot be traced through handwriting.

“There’s no way we know who they are,” deMarrais said.

Jan Hathcote in the College of Family and Consumer Sciences said threats made through course evaluations would be reported to campus security.

“If you want to express positive or negative experiences about the faculty member or course, then communicate with the instructor’s department head,” Hathcote said.

The colleges reflect the lack of uniformity in course evaluations at the University. While some do evaluations online, others prefer multiple choice and written responses. To encourage student response and privacy, many have moved to the online version.

“With the online, presumably the student comments are anonymous,” said Diane Samdahl, College of Education faculty senate president.

Online evaluations aren’t a solution. At the College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, electronic evaluations have not worked out, Broder said.

“Going to electronic hasn’t been very good” in responses, he said.

In Warnell, they found the response rate with electronic evaluations close to paper, according to Hendrick.

But while administrators are wary about threats, evaluations hold added importance to the student body.

Broder said they are “really the only chance students have to provide input.”

DeMarrais agreed.

“It’s critical because we want students to be able to give feedback to instructors,” she said.

“We want all students to have a voice,” Hendrick added.